Micks Philosophy needs to change.

[WAITE HOYT 2]

They'll continue to improve so I can't say they won't make the tournament; the problem is they'll be worse next year. I have been behind Cronin from day one for rebuilding the program, and the last couple years I've been in "wait and see" mode to determine if he can take us to the next level. I'll say this: If he doesn't get an assistant to run the offense or RSVP somehow learn a new offense he is done. It has been awful and its not getting any better. If not, we will be a borderline bubble team for the rest of eternity. I've always liked Mick and been grateful to him, but without an offense we will never take the next step and its looking more and more like he refuses to fix the offense.

don't care what offense you implement if you don't have the players it is pointless. Do you really think MC doesn't understand his team struggles offensively. You need players! Just Teaching a offensive concept means nothing if you can't execute it. After each game I read in these threads how the team needs players that can make lay ups. If MC is getting his team in position to shoot lay ups and they are unable to finish at the rim is that system or player? People wanted up tempo and pressure. We run that but when your opponent is over 60 percent from 2 and 3's and 90 percent on free throws it isn't a offensive problem. Plus it's hard to break if your not making any shots and your opponent is making everything.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Well said. I feel the same way. I am also concerned with the lack of player development. Its virtually non existent.

he has taken the same level of talent to the dance 3 years running. To say he doesn't develop talent is crazy. Does Calipari develop talent? He has a whole team of 1 and doners. 1 thing MC has done is get the most out of his players. The question is can he get the better players?

 

[JumpinJack5]

Don't buy the first part at all. Mick definitely keeps in contact with the Huggins players that he recruited. I agree that the only player who has really gotten better is Kilpatrick and I think a lot of that was on his own pure determination.

The open post motion offense Huggy ran is the best style for this type of personal.

I didn't agree with it either, just thought it was interesting that he would say something like that. Also, I never really thought Leonard improved much himself while he was at UC. I would say SK and Dion Dixon are the best recent examples.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

I didn't agree with it either, just thought it was interesting that he would say something like that. Also, I never really thought Leonard improved much himself while he was at UC. I would say SK and Dion Dixon are the best recent examples.

I don't blame him, players like to romanticize the past. People like to forget, but the last two years of Huggins, Cincinnati was #14 and #34 in adjusted OFFENSE respectively...

 

[Bcatfollower]

don't care what offense you implement if you don't have the players it is pointless. Do you really think MC doesn't understand his team struggles offensively. You need players! Just Teaching a offensive concept means nothing if you can't execute it. After each game I read in these threads how the team needs players that can make lay ups. If MC is getting his team in position to shoot lay ups and they are unable to finish at the rim is that system or player? People wanted up tempo and pressure. We run that but when your opponent is over 60 percent from 2 and 3's and 90 percent on free throws it isn't a offensive problem. Plus it's hard to break if your not making any shots and your opponent is making everything.

Mick recruits these players! he wasn't stuck with them...either way you look at its on him. He needs player? then its his job to get them....

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Mick recruits these players! he wasn't stuck with them...either way you look at its on him. He needs player? then its his job to get them....

I'm not arguing that. He is responsible for the talent level he brings in.

 

[Bearcat04]

Another game against a quality opponent, another game in which that opponent dictates to us how we're going to play on the offensive side of the ball. Oh well, this is just what UC hoops has become. We're mediocre and most are cool with it. I mean, we're just little old UC anyways. We shouldn't expect to be great, just be happy with what we've got because this is the best we can do. Sit back and watch us become the 2nd best basketball program in our own city. If you don't think that's true you're lying to yourself, look at the last 8 years and tell me who's better. Look at the future and the recruits that are lined up.

This is what our program has become and many of you couldn't be happier with it. Whatever, f**k it. I'll just get bashed for being negative or told that I'm being unreasonable.

I think my favorite part of last night was our head "coach" once again throwing our players under the bus in the postgame. What was yours??

I'm not sure what your definition of mediocre is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to making the tournament three straight years and advancing further in the tournament than the previous 11 years. Miss the tournament the next few years and then you might have something.

 

[MDW79]

don't care what offense you implement if you don't have the players it is pointless. Do you really think MC doesn't understand his team struggles offensively. You need players! Just Teaching a offensive concept means nothing if you can't execute it. After each game I read in these threads how the team needs players that can make lay ups. If MC is getting his team in position to shoot lay ups and they are unable to finish at the rim is that system or player? People wanted up tempo and pressure. We run that but when your opponent is over 60 percent from 2 and 3's and 90 percent on free throws it isn't a offensive problem. Plus it's hard to break if your not making any shots and your opponent is making everything.

A good portion of his responsibilities as a head coach is recruiting the players he needs for his system and/or the players he needs to win.

Let's make this a simple percentage breakdown. Let's say 50% of his job is coaching and 50% is recruiting. (I realize it is much more complex than this, but it's just for discussion's sake)

You keep reiterating that he doesn't have the talent. It's his job to get it!!!! Even if he's the best coach in world he's failing in the other 50% if what you say is true. (That he's a fine coach, just doesn't have the horses.)

The fact of the matter is the team continues to have the same struggles. You can blame this on recruiting or coaching. Personally I think it's a combination of both. While neither area is awful I think both need vast improvement.

There is simply no excuse to see what we're seeing in YEAR EIGHT. We don't have a single player on this roster that can play with their backs to the basket. We're seeing the same offensive sets we've seen all along. Recruitn a different type of player!!!! Coach them up to play a different style!!! Do something, anything!!!!

It's not working!!!! It hasn't changed!!!! Unless you're content with being a a middling team, usually ranking anywhere from the 25-60 range, and sneaking into the tourney as a 6-10 seed at about a 50-60% clip, then it might be time to consider moving on.

Year 10 will be here before you know it. Exactly how long before we can expect to see different results? At what point can we reasonably say "This is pretty much who we are and what we can expect"? I think we can say it right now. This program just isn't very good. While Mick is not a terrible coach and he did do a good job bringing this team back from nothing, a lot of people are going to want more. UC is routinely considered one of the top 20 programs of all time. This isn't good enough. These type of results would coaches fired at plenty of places with similar or lesser resources than us, and with way less of a history and pedigree. So why is it acceptable here? Because of what happened damn near a decade ago?

I'm so tired of the excuses. I don't know how saying he doesn't have the talent isn't a knock on the job he's doing. What else could it be?

Rant over....

 

[MDW79]

I'm not sure what your definition of mediocre is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to making the tournament three straight years and advancing further in the tournament than the previous 11 years. Miss the tournament the next few years and then you might have something.

That is mediocre for a program like ours. Leave getting excited about just making the tourney to the Xavier's and St. Mary's of the world. Is this what we've become? Being impressed with simply making the tourney?

Sad.

 

[Bearcat04]

That is mediocre for a program like ours. Leave getting excited about just making the tourney to the Xavier's and St. Mary's of the world. Is this what we've become? Being impressed with simply making the tourney?

Sad.

When you have only been to the 2nd weekend of the tournament ONCE since 1996 there is nothing mediocre about making the Sweet 16 two years ago.

 

[Bcatfollower]

No but its the only way people can still support the lack of progress... one 2nd round exit, one sweet 16 and one 1st round exit and we act like mick is bobby knight.

 

[Bearcat04]

No but its the only way people can still support the lack of progress... one 2nd round exit, one sweet 16 and one 1st round exit and we act like mick is bobby knight.

Who said that? Just simply pointing out that there is nothing mediocre about the last few years.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I totally agree with the premise of this thread. This goes beyond players not being good shooters. The scheme doesn't even allow guys to get open in spots to score the ball and the passing is pathetic.

The offensive woes of this team are directly related to coaching and recruiting or the lack thereof. You have to have someone who can score the ball in the paint. That can be done in various ways. A) you have a low post scorers who can score in the post B) You have good passing bigs and perimeter players that understand cutting to the lane when a double team of the big man takes place or C) You have guards who can create, drive, score or dish.

Mick these are your players, recruited by you or your staff. Put them in position to score and stop harping that they can't play defense after every loss. The defense has given up 63 and 64 in back to back losses and the team lost. Why did they lose? Because they were unable to score 65 points in either game.

This is a pattern and it falls directly at the feet of the coaches. Good coaches don't make a philosophy up and force players into it. Good coaches build a philosophy around the players they have and their strengths and weaknesses.

You refuse to change your starting line up and you refuse to shorten your rotation. There are players who over and over again have proven they are not contributors. As a fan base we'd rather see new players given an opportunity rather than you playing the same guys we know can't perform.

Why isn't Troy Caupain starting? Why year after year do we see players from a major D1 program who have no ideal how to set a screen or pick? There is never any ball reversable and your players have no clue on back cuts and attacking the basket.

Please do something before what headway you have made with this program is lost. There is plenty of season left. Show you are a good coach and alter what you're trying to do to fit the skill set of the players you have. It seems evident to everyone but you that what you're doing simply isn't working.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

Interesting that you say this. I talked to Leonard Stokes for a few minutes when I saw him walking around downtown. He said that Mick wants nothing to do with Bob Huggins or his players, and he even refuses to run the same offense because he wants a different image (looks like the same bad offense, IMO). He said that he can honestly say that Mick hasn't improved any of the players in the program. He was especially critical of the staffs development of Yancy, which I semi-agree with.

I think some of Huggins players have animosity towards the program after Huggins firing. Stokes probably isn't one of them as he is a regular fixture at games, but saying things like this to fans isn't helping the program. I know early in Mick's years, Mick brought in some former players to teach the Bearcat way. I just find that statement to be unfounded. I can understand that Mick wouldn't want to be associated with Huggins. He can't succeed under Huggins shadow and the program was pretty tarnished in the eyes of people outside of the city and Huggin's fan base. As far as players being developed, I get the frustration but let's be honest. Huggins improved players because the players were capable of improving. They were better recruits and were able to reach their potential with Huggins. Huggins was very good at getting the most out of his guys. At the sime time for every Eric Hicks or Steve Logan there were Robert Whaleys and Michael Hortons. I think alot of Mick's guys just never had a high ceiling to begin with because he couldn't recruit those caliber of players to come here. Yancy is the one that stands out the most for seemingly lost potential, but Cronin gave Yancy every opportunity in the world to get better. It's on a player to want to improve. Jackson sat around for three years before he's taken the initiative to get better. Any player that has been here and stuck around four years has improved. To say otherwise is just untrue. They just never had high ceilings. These new recruits are much better and have much higher ceilings for their games. Mick will coach them up and our program will continue to rise. And we will still probably lose to Xavier every other year.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I'm telling you when recruits see this offense it is detrimental because it appears nobody has a clue of what they're doing.

 

[JumpinJack5]

I think some of Huggins players have animosity towards the program after Huggins firing. Stokes probably isn't one of them as he is a regular fixture at games, but saying things like this to fans isn't helping the program. I know early in Mick's years, Mick brought in some former players to teach the Bearcat way. I just find that statement to be unfounded. I can understand that Mick wouldn't want to be associated with Huggins. He can't succeed under Huggins shadow and the program was pretty tarnished in the eyes of people outside of the city and Huggin's fan base. As far as players being developed, I get the frustration but let's be honest. Huggins improved players because the players were capable of improving. They were better recruits and were able to reach their potential with Huggins. Huggins was very good at getting the most out of his guys. At the sime time for every Eric Hicks or Steve Logan there were Robert Whaleys and Michael Hortons. I think alot of Mick's guys just never had a high ceiling to begin with because he couldn't recruit those caliber of players to come here. Yancy is the one that stands out the most for seemingly lost potential, but Cronin gave Yancy every opportunity in the world to get better. It's on a player to want to improve. Jackson sat around for three years before he's taken the initiative to get better. Any player that has been here and stuck around four years has improved. To say otherwise is just untrue. They just never had high ceilings. These new recruits are much better and have much higher ceilings for their games. Mick will coach them up and our program will continue to rise. And we will still probably lose to Xavier every other year.

The biggest difference is that not as many people fall through the cracks in recruiting nowadays. When Hugs started at UC, he got some nice, under-the-radar JUCO players. Now, it is tough to find guys that have fallen through the cracks. You can get a few, like Parker, Caupain, Dixon, SK, etc., but you will have to live with having more duds (Biggie, Gaines, Ellis, etc.). This is especially true right now, as we have had terrible luck with this Junior class. If just one of those guys could be a productive player, I think it would help us out a lot. Problem is, Shaq, Sanders, and Guyn aren't consistently good. When you couple that with freshmen still trying to find their way and bad play by JJ and Rubles, you aren't going to win. JJ is a role player and he wouldn't start on a good team. Rubles keeps shooting those damn jumpers that he never makes and no one buys his pump fake as a result. We should've never used that scholly on Big Dave in desperation, should've saved it for a good recruit the next year. JD3 situation was unfortunate and Gaines was a low-skilled, high potential project that never panned out because Mick couldn't get the job done. We definitely have our problems, but I'm hoping that once we get rid of this Junior class, things will start to look better for us.

 

[JumpinJack5]

I'm telling you when recruits see this offense it is detrimental because it appears nobody has a clue of what they're doing.

What offense? It looks like 5 guys BSing it as they go along. We need to hire an "offensive coordinator."

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

I'm telling you when recruits see this offense it is detrimental because it appears nobody has a clue of what they're doing.

This is nearly a decade old problem, at some point you have the accept what they are. If Mick is going to continue to recruit the same types of players (which I actually have no problem with the majority of his recruiting sans the big man issue), you are going to get the same results.

 

[Scheids21]

I mean it seriously looks like they aren't running an offense. It looks like 5 guys playing a pickup game: big randomly tries posting up, random picks here and there, but mostly watching a guy and hoping he can make a play one on one.

The announcer was even saying last night how confused he was they didn't run any plays for Sean when he is clearly our best offensive player

 

[david aka the TYZ]

I'm telling you when recruits see this offense it is detrimental because it appears nobody has a clue of what they're doing.

I can counter that when recruits sign here they are quoted as saying they like our style of play and they like how Mick lets his bigs be agressive. Winning and losing is about the only thing that really matters. Lawrence was a high recruit and his visit last year was the Marshall game where we were losing at halftime and looked awful and the place was half empty. But he signed. I get the point, but I don't know that recruits really break down the offenses and watch every game that closely for every college that recruits them on top of playing and being in high school and having a social life and tweeting and facebooking and getting laid and whatever else 17 year-old phenoms like to do.

Bearcat Jeff, you're about the most positive poster we have on this site that actually is critical at the same time. You've been very negative after this loss. Try not to hang your head too low, I hate losing to X as much as anyone and last night was embarassing. We got a whole season to see how it plays out and I'm anxious to see what we can do once conference play starts.